Of 164 included trials, 33% showed bias in reporting of the PE and 67% in the reporting of toxicity. The PE was more likely to be reported in the concluding statement of the abstract when significant differences favoring the experimental arm were shown; 59% of 92 trials with a negative PE used secondary end points to suggest benefit of experimental therapy. Only 32% of articles indicated the frequency of grade 3 and 4 toxicities in the abstract. A positive PE was associated with under-reporting of toxicity.

With the proper manipulation, any words can be twisted out of context or purposefully excluded. Where is the transparency? I wonder how much of this is due to which special interest is funding part or all of the study. Researchers probably don’t like to bite the hand that feeds them any more than any of us do. They also probably don’t want to be the bearer of bad news. Messengers sometimes get shot.

And let’s not forget that a lot of the cell lines used in academic labs are contaminated to the point where researchers who, for example, think they are studying head and neck cancer are really studying cervical cancer.